BoatShoes;1153203 wrote:Chasing after balanced budgets in a depressed economy is a fools errand.

I like you, Boat. But I just cant see the justification that we ought not to pursue spending less than we bring in if we're already in an obscene amount of debt.

O-Trap;1153206 wrote:I like you, Boat. But I just cant see the justification that we ought not to pursue spending less than we bring in if we're already in an obscene amount of debt.

That's it in a nutshell. Common sense economics says you should not spend more than you can bring in.

Some of you lefties would give me a "gotcha" on that because it implies we should raise taxes. Unfortunately raising taxes in a severe recession is also bad policy. If the economy is down, you don't kick it in the balls to motivate it to improve. And it's been demonstrated time and again that making the evil rich "pay more of their fair share" won't even put a dent in our national debt crisis.

So the Keynesianists will say, "Well, if that's the case the government should step in and spend us out of the recession. Once the economy picks up, the taxes will start to roll in and then we can pay for all the spending we've done." The problem is Uncle Sugar already has 20 platinum credit cards in his wallet and he's maxed out every single one of them to the tune of trillions of dollars in debt. So spending more of what we don't have is like applying for another credit card and hoping that fixes the problem. We all know what the inevitable outcome will be. Plus once the Feds get used to spending more, they NEVER stop spending the new spending.

The only logical solution is to CUT SPENDING; not increase it. To use a simple analogy, when a family gets into financial problems they eat out less often, sell the house they can't afford, downgrade to basic cable instead of the premium package, trade in their SUV for an economy car, etc. Whatever it takes. Sure life won't be as fun but you survive.

It's funny how the Feds simply can't grasp that idea. We don't have to gut every program but we can certainly consolidate redundancies, eliminate waste, find efficiencies, cap budgets, etc., etc. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

O-Trap;1153206 wrote:I like you, Boat. But I just cant see the justification that we ought not to pursue spending less than we bring in if we're already in an obscene amount of debt.

That's it in a nutshell. Common sense economics says you should not spend more than you can bring in.

Some of you lefties would give me a "gotcha" on that because it implies we should raise taxes. Unfortunately raising taxes in a severe recession is also bad policy. If the economy is down, you don't kick it in the balls to motivate it to improve. And it's been demonstrated time and again that making the evil rich "pay more of their fair share" won't even put a dent in our national debt crisis.

So the Keynesianists will say, "Well, if that's the case the government should step in and spend us out of the recession. Once the economy picks up, the taxes will start to roll in and then we can pay for all the spending we've done." The problem is Uncle Sugar already has 20 platinum credit cards in his wallet and he's maxed out every single one of them to the tune of trillions of dollars in debt. So spending more of what we don't have is like applying for another credit card and hoping that fixes the problem. We all know what the inevitable outcome will be. Plus once the Feds get used to spending more, they NEVER stop spending the new spending.

The only logical solution is to CUT SPENDING; not increase it. To use a simple analogy, when a family gets into financial problems they eat out less often, sell the house they can't afford, downgrade to basic cable instead of the premium package, trade in their SUV for an economy car, hold down a couple of jobs for awhile etc. Whatever it takes. Sure life won't be as fun but you survive.

It's funny how the Feds simply can't grasp that idea. We don't have to gut every program but we can certainly consolidate redundancies, eliminate waste, find efficiencies, cap budgets, etc., etc. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

believer;1153220 wrote:That's it in a nutshell. Common sense economics says you should not spend more than you can bring in.

Some of you lefties would give me a "gotcha" on that because it implies we should raise taxes. Unfortunately raising taxes in a severe recession is also bad policy. If the economy is down, you don't kick it in the balls to motivate it to improve. And it's been demonstrated time and again that making the evil rich "pay more of their fair share" won't even put a dent in our national debt crisis.

So the Keynesianists will say, "Well, if that's the case the government should step in and spend us out of the recession. Once the economy picks up, the taxes will start to roll in and then we can pay for all the spending we've done." The problem is Uncle Sugar already has 20 platinum credit cards in his wallet and he's maxed out every single one of them to the tune of trillions of dollars in debt. So spending more of what we don't have is like applying for another credit card and hoping that fixes the problem. We all know what the inevitable outcome will be. Plus once the Feds get used to spending more, they NEVER stop spending the new spending.

The only logical solution is to CUT SPENDING; not increase it. To use a simple analogy, when a family gets into financial problems they eat out less often, sell the house they can't afford, downgrade to basic cable instead of the premium package, trade in their SUV for an economy car, hold down a couple of jobs for awhile etc. Whatever it takes. Sure life won't be as fun but you survive.

It's funny how the Feds simply can't grasp that idea. We don't have to gut every program but we can certainly consolidate redundancies, eliminate waste, find efficiencies, cap budgets, etc., etc. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Reps.

For anyone who cares, Romney supports Ohio's Issue 2.

WebFire;1153310 wrote:For anyone who cares, Romney supports Ohio's Issue 2.

Hmmm, that makes him at least a little more appealing to me.

Con_Alma;1153340 wrote:Hmmm, that makes him at least a little more appealing to me.

I thought the same.

[video=youtube;XtPm-bh37GU][/video]

BoatShoes;1153203 wrote:As if you would support any policy that would make a recovery happen Gut! Chasing after balanced budgets in a depressed economy is a fools errand. Cameron government is now in a full blown recession and that is exactly what you have argued we should be doing.

Classical theory predicts the market/consumer reacts to offset stimulus spending. Until now, they Keynesians have won that debate. What I see happening, in the US, is a massive debt/deficit overhang crushing economic growth. The same phenomenon can be seen in the stock market (incidentally, Europe's economy under the massive social programs has been a real dog for years and years). A responsible plan to a balanced budget is going to produce more positive economic results than the govt flushing good money after bad.

You're argument is if we take $1 of govt spending off the table, GDP is going to decline $1. I'm saying we aren't seeing any net growth from that $1, and that if you take away that $1 it will be offset by a loosening of the purse strings producing better intermediate and long-run growth, and possibly even in the short-run as well.

I believe the Keynesian model has merit, but we are clearly past the tipping point. This is unsurprising since we've never paid back any of our deficits, really, and the market has finally caught on and behaving according to the rational models. One cannot possibly look at the $1.5T deficits we are running and see tangible benefits to the economy. $1.5T deficits - where's this recovery you're promising me that only needs more govt spending? The stimulus/deficit spending is not working - what business/markets clearly want is not more spending but mroe fiscal responsibilty.

If you want an eye-opener, check this out - http://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

It's the USdebtclock.org website that has a new feature. In the upper right hand corner of their home page, you'll find a link to previous presidential-cycle years and projections for 2016, which is what I linked. It's based on current projections being forecast 4 years into the future. In other words, if Obama is re-elected and we stay with the current spend-spend-spend-spend Keynesian philosophies, in four years we'll be:

$21,709,000,000,000 in debt.
The annualized deficit for 2016 will be $3,400,000,000,000.
The spending will be just shy of $5,000,000,000,000 per year.
The unfunded liabilities will be $145,000,000,000,000. By the way...can anyone count that high?!! What a freakin train wreck.
The GDP will be slightly over $17,000,000,000,000. How about that debt to revenue ratio, eh?!

These numbers will crush Amerika. And yet....there are millions that will pull Barry's lever in November because they believe he can fix the financial mess he doubled in 4 short years. At least we'll all have free healthkare.

fish82;1152167 wrote:I doubt it will be a landslide either way. I'll be surprised if either side breaks 280.

Truth. The combination of an overly-partisan citizenship and two uninspiring candidates (ie: two guys who definitely don't have what it takes to overcome partisanship among the populace) leads to a close race.

Karl Rove currently as the President with 284 EC votes with states still "toss-ups"

BGFalcons82;1153563 wrote:These numbers will crush Amerika. And yet....there are millions that will pull Barry's lever in November because they believe he can fix the financial mess he doubled in 4 short years. At least we'll all have free healthkare.

Paid for by Fed fiat money.

believer;1153947 wrote:Paid for by Fed fiat money.

Let's save money by teaming up with McDonald's to make hospital gowns out of recycled Big Mac wrappers!

gut;1153960 wrote:Let's save money by teaming up with McDonald's to make hospital gowns out of recycled Big Mac wrappers!

Naw...There's too much capitalism in it.

believer;1153220 wrote:That's it in a nutshell. Common sense economics says you should not spend more than you can bring in.

Some of you lefties would give me a "gotcha" on that because it implies we should raise taxes. Unfortunately raising taxes in a severe recession is also bad policy. If the economy is down, you don't kick it in the balls to motivate it to improve. And it's been demonstrated time and again that making the evil rich "pay more of their fair share" won't even put a dent in our national debt crisis.

So the Keynesianists will say, "Well, if that's the case the government should step in and spend us out of the recession. Once the economy picks up, the taxes will start to roll in and then we can pay for all the spending we've done." The problem is Uncle Sugar already has 20 platinum credit cards in his wallet and he's maxed out every single one of them to the tune of trillions of dollars in debt. So spending more of what we don't have is like applying for another credit card and hoping that fixes the problem. We all know what the inevitable outcome will be. Plus once the Feds get used to spending more, they NEVER stop spending the new spending.

The only logical solution is to CUT SPENDING; not increase it. To use a simple analogy, when a family gets into financial problems they eat out less often, sell the house they can't afford, downgrade to basic cable instead of the premium package, trade in their SUV for an economy car, hold down a couple of jobs for awhile etc. Whatever it takes. Sure life won't be as fun but you survive.

It's funny how the Feds simply can't grasp that idea. We don't have to gut every program but we can certainly consolidate redundancies, eliminate waste, find efficiencies, cap budgets, etc., etc. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I'm with ya largely. Yes, we need to cut spending, deep. Cut Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. Those are the big three. Without cutting those, the debt can't be lowered any other way. People will have to bear more of the burden. Tough.
But, I also think, that needs to occur, along with a modest tax increase for everyone. It is a mix of both that can get us out of this mess

BGFalcons82;1153563 wrote:If you want an eye-opener, check this out - http://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

It's the USdebtclock.org website that has a new feature. In the upper right hand corner of their home page, you'll find a link to previous presidential-cycle years and projections for 2016, which is what I linked. It's based on current projections being forecast 4 years into the future. In other words, if Obama is re-elected and we stay with the current spend-spend-spend-spend Keynesian philosophies, in four years we'll be:

$21,709,000,000,000 in debt.
The annualized deficit for 2016 will be $3,400,000,000,000.
The spending will be just shy of $5,000,000,000,000 per year.
The unfunded liabilities will be $145,000,000,000,000. By the way...can anyone count that high?!! What a freakin train wreck.
The GDP will be slightly over $17,000,000,000,000. How about that debt to revenue ratio, eh?!

These numbers will crush Amerika. And yet....there are millions that will pull Barry's lever in November because they believe he can fix the financial mess he doubled in 4 short years. At least we'll all have free healthkare.

Yeah, it is bad, but I blame everybody, not just the Prez. No one has the guts or leadership, D or R to touch the big three. Even Ryan's plan doesn't cut deep.It is a nice start. It takes both parities to agree to cut and find a solution. Right now, no one, Barry included, and even Romney, has a solution. As a result, no matter whop is elected, the problem with remain.

ptown_trojans_1;1154003 wrote:I'm with ya largely. Yes, we need to cut spending, deep. Cut Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. Those are the big three. Without cutting those, the debt can't be lowered any other way. People will have to bear more of the burden. Tough.

But, I also think, that needs to occur, along with a modest tax increase for everyone. It is a mix of both that can get us out of this mess.

I tend to agree but the thing that scares me is that any tax increase - no matter how modest - will simply be an excuse for politicians and bureaucrats to spend more.

Give me an iron-clad guarantee that the tax increase will be applied strictly to debt reduction without additional spending and then guarantee that the tax increase will be rolled back after the debt is under control, then I will listen to the idea.

But with the clowns running the show in DC on both sides of the aisle I have ZERO confidence that this is even remotely possible.

Prove to me we can get spending under control first and THEN come to me with a tax increase proposal. Until that happens, any talk of tax increases should make all of our butts pucker.

Regarding the Big 3 you forgot to mention defense spending. You and I both know that there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse in the military procurement process that it makes your head spin.

Social Security certainly needs a major revamp but there are millions of Americans, like myself, who have paid into the system for decades and expect - and rightfully so - to see a return on that mandatory "investment." Politicians don't want to make the hard choices because they know there will be a cry throughout the land. Someone will get screwed in the process. Thus the inherent dangers of government sponsored social programs.

Medicare and Medicaid are in the same boat but I think most people would grudgingly accept some changes in those programs. After all, we're now going to be taken care of via ObamaCare, right?

ptown_trojans_1;1154003 wrote:I'm with ya largely. Yes, we need to cut spending, deep. Cut Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. Those are the big three.

SS was running even, maybe a surplus, as recently as 2010? It needs to be tweaked, and I think that can be done relatively painlessly. But at least SS, relatively speaking, you're theoretically paying yourself mostly.

So it's really the big two of Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare/Other entitlements. The two are each about the same outlay as SS. So the clear problem is Medicare/Medicaid we're only paying about 1/5th (relative to SS) eventhough it's actually a greater outlay. And what happens if you add 10% (employer + employee contribution) to FICA? You get social insurance tax rates about in line with Europe! But we're talking nearly a doubling of FICA - we would probably see some actual bloodshed.

Then there's the lovely pot of Other Entitlements that everyone loves and no one really is paying for. That's a little misleading as it really belongs in the pot with discretionary spending which, all together, has about a $900B shortfall.

Soaking the rich and corporations can't come close to covering it. And defense spending does need to be reigned in. But the surest way to change the mentality/culture is to bump the FICA 10% (5% on the employee) and then throw in maybe a 5% VAT. Overnight you will see well over half of the country - pretty much everyone not sucking from the govt teet and even plenty of them - favoring cuts to these programs once they start getting the bills for it.

gut;1154339 wrote:So it's really the big two of Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare/Other entitlements. The two are each about the same outlay as SS. So the clear problem is Medicare/Medicaid we're only paying about 1/5th (relative to SS) eventhough it's actually a greater outlay. And what happens if you add 10% (employer + employee contribution) to FICA? You get social insurance tax rates about in line with Europe! But we're talking nearly a doubling of FICA - we would probably see some actual bloodshed.

And Europe is barely able to sustain those rates even with the US subsidizing their defense. You are right there would be a shit storm. And if we tried to relive the pressure by backing off our defense subsidies in Europe, recent European history proves their shit storms are pretty bad. We tend to get sucked into them.

gut;1154339 wrote:Then there's the lovely pot of Other Entitlements that everyone loves and no one really is paying for. That's a little misleading as it really belongs in the pot with discretionary spending which, all together, has about a $900B shortfall.

People never spend other people's money as wisely as their own. It is so easy and painless.

gut;1154339 wrote:Soaking the rich and corporations can't come close to covering it. And defense spending does need to be reigned in. But the surest way to change the mentality/culture is to bump the FICA 10% (5% on the employee) and then throw in maybe a 5% VAT. Overnight you will see well over half of the country - pretty much everyone not sucking from the govt teet and even plenty of them - favoring cuts to these programs once they start getting the bills for it.

This sums up a good post and why we are so screwed. Politicians are grappling with trying to trying to keep both halves of the country from going ape shit. They have been telling lie after lie for so long. Meanwhile we spiral into debt because of it. Its like the husband who has been using the credit cards to sustain the wife's spending habits because he fears setting her straight with realistic financial restraints because it may reduce the number of fucks he gets. The end result many times is dissolution of the union.

majorspark;1154665 wrote:The end result many times is dissolution of the union.

If Romney and his strategists are smart, they will absolutely hammer this issue: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-chinese-dissident-chen-departure-american-embassy-dark-184056059.html

Romney needs to immediately come forward with what he would do(I'm guessing grant Chen asylum.) If the administration does it, it will appear as though they are following Romney's advice. If they don't, Romney can pound them on the fact there's a blind guy and his wife and kid being beaten daily in China because the administration refused to take a stand/cowered to Chinese pressure.

2kool4skool;1151813 wrote:The political death sentence. "The only reason we could lose, is if people are stupid." :laugh:

Dems thought the same thing in 04, and they got beaten by an atrocious incumbent. Same thing will happen to the Republicans in 12.





Classy

If you believe the economy was nearly as bad in 04 as it is right now you haven't been paying attention. Bush's only 'knock' at this point in 04 was that he neglected Afghanistan and went after Iraq. That is a BIG one of course, but the economy was booming at this time.

Kerry was quite possibly the worst candidate in my lifetime, due to the Iraq war all the dems had to do was put a half decent candidate up there and they win.

Unfortunatly, the Rs are in the same boat, the difference is that the Ds, in both cases, had the help of the MSM to get their guy elected.

The economy is so bad that even a decent candidate SHOULD beat Obama, but with the MSM's help Obama may get a 2nd term.

Wow, what a surprise! The MSM will decide this election. That argument is getting more tired every time the tin-hats bring it up, which is almost daily.

I think the election is way too close to call in this early stage. The debates may help move one of them forward, but I'll put my money on global events, perhaps even an "October Surprise", swaying many voters. Remember in 2008 it was running close until the financial meltdown. McCain's ignorance of all things related to the economy doomed his ticket.

stlouiedipalma;1162380 wrote: McCain's ignorance of all things related to the economy doomed his ticket.

I don't necessarily disagree, but relative to Obama that's an absurdly comical statement.

stlouiedipalma;1162380 wrote:Wow, what a surprise! The MSM will decide this election. That argument is getting more tired every time the tin-hats bring it up, which is almost daily.

I think the election is way too close to call in this early stage. The debates may help move one of them forward, but I'll put my money on global events, perhaps even an "October Surprise", swaying many voters. Remember in 2008 it was running close until the financial meltdown. McCain's ignorance of all things related to the economy doomed his ticket.

No one said the MSM will decide the election, but you can NOT deny that the MSM is 100% biased and therefore helping Obama.

I did not say they would decide, but they definitely help.